[Alex2614]

When did I ever advocate for 60 championsplits? I guess you and I have very differing values on what FIRST is about. If it means more people can experience the championship experience, and change even more lives (and not just the same teams every year), then I'm willing to sacrifice some things. People will still be just as impacted at these two events as at one. The events will still be huge and inspiring. There is nothing sustainable about not growing certain aspects of your program as your program grows. What if we put a cap on the number of teams that can exist? Or better yet, if a team never grows to meet demand because they still want the same numbers they had before? Teams themselves split up all the time for this very reason. If they can't grow one team, they'll have two, so they can meet demand. What if these teams never did this, because they wanted just one? So they deny more and more students every year because they're unable to grow? Bottom line is, to remain sustainable and viable, aspects of the program need to grow along with the organization.

When there were 25% of teams going to one championship event, it wasn't seen (by most) as not prestigious. Now you tell your sponsors 25% of teams make it to the championship events. They'll still see top 25%. 8 alliances on Einstein or 16 alliances on Einstein when you're talking about the thousands of teams in existence won't make any difference to your sponsors. 3 winners vs 6 winners.

"You need to find another venue." Well there aren't any, I'm sorry to break that news to you. And like I said earlier, the smaller the percentage is, the more it will just be the same teams over and over again, and I don't want that either. I want some "wiggle room" for other teams to experience it too. You're going to end up with the same 400 or so powerhouses every year, and that sends another additional message of "unobtainabity" to the students.

Someone made this analogy to me earlier and to really stuck to me. He and I are both really involved in the Boy Scouts, and both Eagle Scouts. Has the value of the Eagle Scout diminished in value at all? No, but there are way more people earning it now than 30 years ago. Why? Because the program grew, and thus the number of Eagles grew. Still a similar percentage of scouts make it to Eagle as 30 or 40 years ago, but thousands more will earn it in 2015 than in 1950. The "prestige" is still there. How different would scouting be if they gave out the same number of Eagle awards now that they did in 1920? Not as many scouts would even try for it because it is virtually unobtainable.

Scouting only has a big national event every 4 years. In the meantime, we do things on a more regional level. There are some really really big inspiring "regional" events out there, too. And there are other events at which we can meet scouts from all over. I think in the future of FIRST, we will see more smaller events like IRI that are open to everyone, and we will get to meet people there. Or maybe every couple years we hold a big "jamboree-style event" just for fun for the "meet people from all over" experience. And the workshops, conferences, training, etc can happen there.

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree here. I can see that none of you are going to budge. I was very upset at the championsplit at first too. But at the end of the day, FIRST is still going to impact and change lives and change culture. And we are going to face these 2 championships anyway, whether you like it or not. I think most will find that it will be okay, because the students on their team are still just as impacted, and they are just as inspired. And THATS what matters for me. Our kids' experience at these events is what is on my mind. And if I can make one more kid smile, one more kid have this life-changing championship experience, I'm going to do that. And this model helps us all bring that to thousands more kids. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but to me, that is all that matters.